Get Shield WAF posture score and breakdown for a domain registered under this account. Returns 0-100 score, letter grade, per-component breakdown (origin lock, virtual patching, TLS, etc.), and edge_health (whether Shield is actually intercepting traffic). Requires API key.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| domain | Yes | Domain registered under your Sectora account |
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations provided, the description carries full responsibility. It discloses the return values (0-100 score, letter grade, per-component breakdown, edge_health) and the authentication requirement. It does not explicitly state read-only behavior or potential side effects, but the output details are sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences long, with the first sentence stating the primary purpose and the second providing specifics. Every word adds value; no redundancy or fluff.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description covers the core purpose, key output fields, and a prerequisite. It is mostly complete, though it could mention error cases or domain validation. Overall, it provides sufficient context for an agent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100% and the description repeats the schema's parameter description ('Domain registered under your Sectora account'). No additional semantic meaning or usage tips are added, so the description does not enhance the schema's information.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
The description clearly states the verb 'Get' and the resource 'Shield WAF posture score and breakdown', specifying that it's for a domain registered under the account. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like get_scan or get_threat_stats which focus on different security aspects.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description mentions the prerequisite 'Requires API key' and implies the domain must be registered under the account. However, it does not explicitly state when to use this tool over alternatives like assess_tech_risk or list_my_findings, leaving the agent to infer context.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Most tools have distinct purposes, but 'lookup_cve' and 'get_weaponization_score' both focus on a single CVE, which could cause confusion. However, descriptions clarify their different outputs (full enrichment vs. numerical score).
Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use 'get_', others 'list_', 'lookup_', 'assess_', 'scan_url', 'search_cves'. No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.
14 tools is well within the ideal 3-15 range, covering a broad scope of security assessment and intelligence without being excessive.
Core workflows (scanning, vulnerability lookup, threat stats) are covered, but missing update/delete operations for scans and domain verification tool. Notable gaps exist but core functionality is present.
